[acawiki-general] Fwd: comments on BibTeX import, from Jim Pitman
jodi at acawiki.org
Sat Oct 24 07:43:31 EDT 2009
Hi AcaWiki general list!
Jim Pitman gave permission to share these comments.
What's essential to change for our BibTeX import now? In particular--do you
think the AcaWiki summary should be pulling from the note field (leaving the
abstract field for the official summary)?
Let us know what you think!
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Jim Pitman <pitman at stat.berkeley.edu>wrote:
> Hi Neeru,
> I uploaded a couple of summaries to acawiki and mostly it worked fine.
> Note these are almost verbatim copies of summaries of my own work, but I
> hold the copyright for electronic distribution (even for the Springer
> There are a number of bugs/issues with the bibtex upload, then some
> 1) bibtex allows names to be represented as Last, First
> You have to parse this, else it becomes two names.
> 2) The bibtex "note" field was interpreted as the summary. This seems a bad
> It is commonplace to use the "abstract" field for a summary. I expected
> this to be
> pulled in ut it did not happen.
> In any case, none of this is standard bibtex, and it needs to be
> 3) You explicitly invite contributions about books, and I provided one, but
> the metadata
> format is unitype for a journal article. This means some shoe-horning in
> the metadata which
> lowers its quality.
> 4) There is only room for one url in "Online Version". It is common that
> there is more than one,
> author's homepage
> digital repository
> publisher website
> As a general comment. You will do well if you oblige users to provide clean
> metadata. The big
> reviewing service in Mathematics, Math Reviews, which became MathSciNet,
> originally regarded its
> prime content as reviews. Over time it became clear that the main value was
> from high quality metadata
> acquisition and search over that. Reviews/Summaries are great, but
> primarily their value is for searching
> not reading.
> Now here is a radical idea.
> Say I have an article where the abstract is copyright by a publisher.
> So fine, I have a copy of the abstract, and I upload the words of the
> abstract to Acawiki in random order.
> It is not human readable, but it is great for search engines, and it is
> arguably fair use!
> Now if someone wants to take these words and rearrange them in to something
> useful, or add their own, more power to them.
> A question is what if anything you would do to stop a user doing that, not
> just for their own article, but for someone else's.
> For that matter, what are you doing to prevent copyright violations. If
> someone posts an abstract verbatim, that is not their
> copyright, are you legally protected?
> enough for one email!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the acawiki-general